RE: [bc-gnso] BC statement on IRT
>From Marilyn Cade, ICT Strategies, mCADE llc I support Ayesha's proposal. It offers a compromise. I also would note that the IRT's work is not just about trademark protection, or 'interests', but also about limiting consumer confusion, and addressing other kinds of issues that were identified during the public comment process involving the collision of trademarks and domain names. I like that the proposed language Ayesha offers is high level enough that it shows appreciation but does not lock in those members who wish to say more, or less, about the IRT recommendations. Ayesha's proposal "The BC recognizes the work and efforts of all those who participated in > > the IRT. The BC believes that this report is productive step forward in > > addressing several issues with respect to new gTLDs. > > > > The BC urges its members to post their individual comments on the > > substance of the report at Public comment space > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-4-29may09-en.htm" On a personal note, to those from the BC who worked ON the IRT, I appreciate your accepting this 'assignment', your dedication and commitment of your time/and intellectual expertise, and most recently, this week, that you are gracious and generous with your time in briefing all groups on the IRT's report during the ICANN meeting, often giving up being in meetings on other topics where you undoubtedly needed to be, from your business interests. I realize that you are also now faced with even more time in the public sessions. This commitment is quite considerable, and still before you. I hope you will accept my expression of gratitude, and if you care to, feel free to take at least this paragraph and share it with your IRT colleagues.